If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are saying/ thinking that GWS still get COLA, then that is not correct. It was abolished for both Sydney clubs and replaced with the accommodation allowance (subject to maximum salary test) paid directly by the AFL.

A preliminary announcement early in the process of these changes seemed to imply that the Giants would continue to get COLA but thatís not what eventually happened.

However GWS were not subject to the discriminatory trade ban that was inflicted on the Swans during the transitional phase of COLA abolition. You might have been referring to that.

I was pointing out that each list does not get paid exactly the same amount - mostly due to the fact there is no obligation to spend your whole salary cap and partly because you can carry some unspent salary cap over into a subsequent year. For completeness I pointed out that COLA was abolished for all clubs but that Giants still had some kind of concession (didn't remember exact details). I was not referring to the trade ban.

What about the anomaly of those dreadful Melbourne lists under Mark Neeld being paid 95% of our list or Hawks list! Some seriously overpaid players there.

I think having to pay a certain minimum % is rubbish for that very reason, clubs should be able to pay fair market rate for a player regardless of what the list totals up to. Having to over pay players to make the minimum %, what a joke, AFLPA at work!

Totally and completely agree. Makes in near impossible to clear the decks and bring in a couple of quality players from other clubs. Carlton and Melbourne spend many seasons recruiting second rate players on first rate salary to make the minimum salary cap percentage.